[address-policy-wg] Vanity address allocations and the end of IPv4

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 03:24:18PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
> On 29 Mar 2010, at 14:48, Shane Kerr wrote:
> 
> >To be clear, we're not talking about anyone getting more or less  
> >address
> >space, or allocating in a way that makes aggregation more difficult. I
> >thought those were the two basic goals of IP allocation policy, right?
> 
> I'm not sure Shane that an allocation of vanity addresses would fit  
> with these goals. If it does, then fine. Though I'm doubtful. If there  
> were "too many" vanity assignments, that may well fragment the unused  
> space in a way that prevents another LIR getting a contiguous  
> allocation that's big enough for their genuine technical needs. It  
> might also encourage a land-grab by people gobbling up vanity space  
> that they don't actually need in the hope that they could sell it on  
> later.

	to be clear, a "vanity" address is in the eye of the 
	beholder.  

--bill